Brough v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To apply [Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 , 90 S.Ct. 858 , 25 L.Ed.2d 156 ] prospectively only would indicate that a federal statute duly enacted by Congress could mean one thing prior to the Supreme Court’s interpretation and something entirely different after-wards. Here the relationship of § 3282 to §§ 462 and 453 had never been considered by the Supreme Court prior to Toussie. Nevertheless, a statute, under our system of separate powers of government, can have only one meaning. An interpretive rule, such as 32 C.F.R. § 1611.7 (c), concerning that statute is either consistent with the statute or inconsistent. If inconsistent, as the Supreme Court found in Toussie, then the prior interpretation is, and always was, invalid. It necessarily follows that Toussie should have retroactive application in the case at bar. “In sum, the doctrine of retroactivity has been developed in cases dealing with criminal proceedings where new constitutional procedural protections had been announced. [Citations omitted.] “We conclude that the standards thus far developed for applying new constitutional protections prospectively only have no application in the instant appeal to the statutory interpretation by the Supreme Court.” (Emphasis in the original, 454 F.2d at 372-373 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Strauss v. United States · United States v. Shelton